On Mon, 16 Mar 1998, Hu McCulloch wrote:
> >If maize was present at Kaundinyapura, why didn't it appear in the
> >botanical remains from that site (which Vishnu-Mittre analyzed)?
>> This work was apparently done prior to 1968. Was flotation commonplace
> that early? I think you noted earlier that maize remains would be more likely
> to show up _in flotatio_ than _in situ_. [That's a new technical term
> I just made up. ;-) ]
They found rice, if maize was present and common, it would have been found
by the same methods that found rice remains.
>> >Are you arguing that it was only present in the Hoysala area in the 13th
> >and 14th centuries? There has been ample research in other areas of India.
>> 13th c So. Karnataka is where we have the best sculptures of maize,
> so if it shows up anywhere it ought to be there. Sikkim is another good
> candidate, since that is where the primitive maize grows that Kumar and JKS
> Sachan argue on genetic grounds must have been established before Columbus.
> (So far as I can tell, this is curiously the same JKS Sachan who, with
> Payak, is a leading critic of Johannessen & Parker's iconographic
> evidence).
And Kaundinyapur is in yet a third area of the Indian subcontinent.
and there, we no they examined botanical remains.
Jeff Baker